This blog is made by those who observe the world in which art is developed and for those who are willing to read about new approaches in today’s art.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

The “supplement”. Draft for a performance.

-Javier de Frutos

01. Introduction

In the twentieth
century the modern museum has turned itself into one of the most poignant
social paradoxes; public institutions alienated from a clear social mission,
constantly playing out a balancing act between public and private funding.
They’ve become institutions that have looked for too much time for a safe haven
inside their own white walls, their own group of investors and donors (which
gain profit from this relation through federally implemented tax deductions)
serving as the primary interests to appease when taking into consideration the
design of programs, the acquisition of collections, and the art historical
frame to which the museums and curators abide. This has created a system
of institutionalized art practice that is turning a blind eye to the social
responsibilities that said institutions have with their communities.What can
museums offer us besides showing artworks in tightly designed white cubes?
As Habernas states, the challenge lies in the re-embracement of particular
“supplements” such as education, forums for public dialogues, and addressing in
an active manner issues pertinent to communities. For Habermas the
challenge of the twentieth century is to reclaim the promise of the public
sphere fora genuine democratic debate.

Jorge Rivalta tries to
re-define the “public sphere” in the institutional discourse by pointing out
the importance of the museums in the creation of spaces for criticism,
freedom of expression, play and experimentation. Nancy Fraser
contributes to Haberma’s ideal system with a model of post-bourgeois audience
in her book “Rethinking the Public Sphere”. Fraser thinks this sphere of
critical debate ,in our case, themuseum,should embrace
the public without any social or economic discrimination; museums not
just for an elitist group of people conscious of art’s neologistic discourse
(and with a direct interests in the market), but also for a variety of people
in the public sphere that are able to createsubstantial debates that bring into light problems and preoccupations
which affect them and their communities. She also claims for a fair
space in which debate can take place and allow for the creation of new
dynamics, and relations, between the different sectors in the social strata.

Looking through different museum
philosophies, it is difficult to see the differences between their practices,
but if we are able to understand how a variety of museums are supported we
could easily understand how these 'supplements' work in their structures. Considering
three different models (EEUU, UK, Europe) we will exemplify three different
perspectives about the role of the institution and the creation of
these 'supplements', or critical areas, in their relation with
the public and their supporters.

The first example is the American
Museum, based on consumerism, it gives importance to their donors,
private collectors, or company-firms, which support almost 75% of the funding.
The supplement for these Museums is usually a kind of an extra gift they share
with the community. They are completely independent from the state; just 10 to
12% of their funding comes from public support, and 15% comes from ticket
sales, which then further alienates it from the community. Because public participation
is not required, there is the risk that it could lose the urgency to create any
kind of significant supplement. The English Museum is the most
populist, 60% of its support coming from private funds; almost the rest being
supplemented by the state. Their idea of the “public” is based on the
electorate: more people and more consumers means more public. The risk with
this model is that the discourse could become superficial and banal. The
European Museum, for the most part,supported by the state. They're
focused on the creation of a critical sphere of discussion for the community.
So as not to lose its critical spirit many of its educational programs are
addressed to an educated elite able to keep up with its discourse.This model
runs the risk of turning overtly elitist, leaving out the larger part of the
community, creating the situation of a lot of money being spent by citizens who
will never participate since its mostly made directed to educated scholars.

02. The idea.

With this in mind
I have developed the performance “The Supplement”, based on the idea of the “hot
dog serving” as an analogy for the contemporary museum system. This
supplementwill involve placing a hot
dog vendor outside of a Museum, in the street, for a month. The
hot dog cart represents the “museum” as a space for critical debate,
the vendor will be identified as“the
curator,” the person in charge of cooking a discourse as “culture” for the
“public”, and the hot dog means the processed art . This performance is
a metaphor about how the art is cooked by cultural institutional policies. In a
smaller scale we will play with other smaller, but significant, details:the package of the hot dog, (the
culture industry) as a framework that confines the bun (the museum) as
the shelter that holds in place the meat (the culture/art) with all its
condiments, representative of different nationalities (the celebration of identity),
and the extra, what we call the “supplement” , as in their commitment
with comunities. My idea is to exemplify, through this project, the
role of ‘the supplement’ in these three type of museum systems. Using different
prices for the bun, the meat, the “extra”, we'll represent these three
different ideal Museum policies. In this arena, the public will be designing
their ideal museum by choosing the bun, the meat, the “extra” ;
different features from these three models. The opportunity the public will
have to decide and think what should be the “supplement”Museums should give to their extended public
as a further expansion that raises questions about the role of art in
contemporary society and the institutional policies that delineate its
practice. The project, will reach a wider audiences than the Museum's one, and
with it a broader perspective and opinionated feedback. The unprecedented
existence of this level of public interaction allows us the possibility of
reconstructing an open critical discourse where the expansive and open nature
of the project guarantees the existence of a truly democratic public discussion
about the nature of the modern museum, as exemplified by a hot dog.

03. Budget.

Hot dog cart: 2000$

Hot dog vendor: 2000$

Meat, buns, condiments.. 1500$

Licenses: 1500$

Design & Packaging: 2000$

Organization: 2000$

*The firstday a
real Curator will open the performance performing for 30 minutes as hot dog
vendor .

04. The installation of the
performance.

The performance
will be documented and become an installation that will be bought through live
feed and create a conversation with the inside of the Museum. This piece will
consist in an installation in which we will use the the hot dog cart, the
feedback from the public, and the video installation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mission Statement

Students, under the guidance of Hou Hanru at the San Francisco Art Institute, began this blog to reach an audience beyond the academic arena. In texts that focus on exhibitions of the Bay Area and beyond, scholars and aspiring curators take stances on topics such as the range of artistic values, the definitions and categorizations of contemporary art, the flow between the art market and artistic production, the function of the museum today, and the current relevance of art.